Day v Humphrey (No 2)

In the case of Day v Humphrey (No 2), the plaintiff sought to have the supervising judge recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Upon the refusal of the recusal application, the supervising judge decided to step down from their role, citing the interests of justice for all parties involved. The plaintiff then applied for costs, arguing they should follow the event. The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, but the discretion exercised by the supervising judge in stepping down for the sake of justice impacted the overall outcome.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the principles of costs following the event and the exercise of discretion by the supervising judge in stepping down. The court had to determine whether the discretion exercised by the supervising judge in stepping down for the sake of justice warranted an order for costs to follow the event.

The court found that the discretion exercised by the supervising judge in stepping down for the sake of justice was appropriate and in the interests of all parties. However, given the circumstances, including the refusal of the recusal application and the plaintiff's application for costs, the court ruled that the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the application filed on 20 December 2018. The court balanced the principles of costs following the event with the specific circumstances of this case, leading to the decision that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the application.